Ipso Facto Comic

Zero Income Tax and Zero Payroll Tax

Opera: simply the best internet experience

Download Opera

Just Google It


porkbustersNo More Jean Fraud sKerry Bullshit

Open Trackback Alliance

Get the code for this blogroll

Add to My Yahoo!

Free John Kerry's SF-180 Blogroll


The Community for Life, Liberty, Property

Guard the Borders

Email Me

If you're using Internet Exploder to view this blog, tough. Get a real browser. :-)

Ignore the Blogspot "profile"—here's the real scoop

What's this blog about, anyway?

Comment-Trackback Policy

Stop the ACLU Blogburst Blogroll

Powered by Blogger

Anti-PC League

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Well, slap me down with a wet noodle...

The NYT publised an at least halfway sensible piece on... nuclear energy!

Stop the world. I wanna get off and see if it's just my head spinning or what.

Can Nuclear Power Become Just Another Business?

Well? Can it? Will loony left moonbats let it? And if it does, will some miniscule element of the Mass Media Podpeople's Army not shoot it in the back? Perhaps even an element with Momentary Sanity "Disorder" at the NYT?

Let's see:

Other countries, especially China and India, are likely to build more nuclear plants and to do so sooner. "People are talking about China building 20 to 21 new reactors," said David M. Schanzer, utility analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott.

Well, in a business piece (in a paper notoriously hostile to any business that doesn't toe its own political correctness line), this is about as good as it gets. Misses the critical information that the (many more than 20 or 21) nuclear power plants already being built by China are almost all of the ultra safe, ultra low waste pebble bed reactor type, which is also much less expensive and less technically demanding than traditional reactors of the type that Three Mile Island conjures up.

Why does the NYT article still play up the investment (and other) risks of nuclear power and ignore the safety, financial advantage and technical ease of building pebble bed reactors?

Maybe because their business section doesn't talk to their science/technology guys or even that their sci/tech guys aren't aware of pebble bed reactors. Heck, here's an MIT site devoted to modular pebble bed reactors. Downsizing even what the Chinese and others are now doing.

A little homework would have improved the NYT article, but then, research in areas foreign to its political agendas isn't exactly the NYT's strong suit.

Heck, I'm not even going to do your work for you, it's so easy. Just google "pebble bed reactor" now that you've heard about it from a long-in-the-tooth musician/comptechie.

Linked at Don Surber's "Of Course There's an Open Post" and others later...